The Bombay HC in a PIL disposed of the petition without expressing an opinion on the merits. The Court clarified that it did not address the issues raised or allegations made by the contesting parties and left all merit issues open for appropriate remedy.
PIL disposed; all merit issues kept open.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1/3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 85 OF 2018
Ashok Barku Vaity ... Petitioner
V/s.
State of Maharashtra & ors. ... Respondents
Mr. Sachin Chavan for the petitioner.
Mr. R.S. Apte, Sr. advocate a/w. Mr.Mandar Limaye for respondent no.2.
Ms. Kavita N. Solunke, AGP for respondent no.1. Ms. Aruna Rathi for respondents 3, 4 and 5 present in person. Mr. D.B. Salunkhe, Asstt. Town Planning present.
Lata Digitally signedby Lata Sunil Sunil PanjwaniDate: Panjwani 2018.08.0213:10:55 +0530
CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL AND G.S. KULKARNI, JJ.
25th July, 2018.
P.C.
Ms.Aruna Rathi appears and submits that she is authorised to
represent in person on behalf of respondents 3, 4 and 5. She has approached Registrar for necessary permission under the rules.
2/3
3/3
the contesting parties in their pleadings or any allegations or contra
allegations made by parties.
(G.S.KULKARNI, J) (NARESH H. PATIL, J.)
L.S. Panjwani, P.S.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Corporation passed resolution lapsing earlier acquisition proceedings and initiating fresh acquisition proceedings.
Whether petitioner can have personal interest in the outcome of the PIL regarding the subject land.
Ashok Barku Vaity
State of Maharashtra
Respondents 3
Respondents 4
Respondents 5
NARESH H. PATIL
G. S. KULKARNI
As recorded by the court registry
Litigation brought on behalf of the public interest rather than a personal grievance, relaxing the usual rule of locus standi.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
